Ричард Майнерцхаген о Т.Э.Лоуренсе

Оригинальная версия дневников Майнерцхагена отличается от опубликованной, но Марк Кокер, тщательно сравнивший эти версии, пишет, что серьезных правок очень мало. Кое-что переписывалось перед публикацией по политическим мотивам: в дневниках много говорится об Израиле, приходилось учитывать текущую ситуацию. Кроме того, Майнерцхаген изменил запись о том, что Лоуренс рассказал ему о Дераа (отрывок из оригинальной версии дневника приводится в примечании к соответствующему фрагменту вместе с пояснением Кокера).I left Paris on July 31, 1919 But before leaving Paris I must refer to T. E. Lawrence whom I got to know intimately during the Peace Conference. It has been suggested that there are many inconsistencies in my remarks about Lawrence. I think this is true, but the notes were always made at the time of the incident they describe and are spread over many years. Every time I met Lawrence I found myself changing my opinion about him, and even nou, though I probably knew him as well as anybody else, I am guite unable to be consistent about this very complez andinteresting man. To know him well was to love him. To know the worstin a man whom one respects and likes, increases affection. It is when one suspects the uorst that contempt creeps in. He was a shy show-off with little to show, a mass of' contradictions and an artist in trying to hide himself in a blaze of limelight. He practised secrecy lit up by publicity; he neither denied nor confirmed many complimentary myths about himself. There is no truth in the legend that Churchill offered Lawrence the High Commissionership of Egypt, though Lawrence hated denying it. Nor is there any' truth that Lloyd George thought of pushing Hankey' out of the Secretaryship of the Cabinet and imposing Lawrence on the nation. Lawrence was a superb actor but not a humbug. Without this element of pretence he could never have succeeded in Arabia during the First World War; his Arabs were a poor lot, splendid looters and with miserable courage. Their exploits were exaggerated, accompanied by contempt for the Turk who will always be a ten-to-one better man than the Bedouin. It is safe to say that Lawrence's Desert Campaign had not the slightest egect on the main theatre west of Jordan. Lawrence insisted on a United Arab Eingdom stretching from the Taurus to Aden and from Iraq to Aqaba, with capital in Damascus and, of course, with kingship vested in the Huseini strain. His failure was a bitter disappointment; he often harped on our ill-faith to the Arabs, 'our' being mainly his own promises; but he did not do too badly considering how little the Arabs had done and that at great profit to themselves. I agree with John Connell (The Office, p. 32) that it uould have been better for our country, and probably for the world, if Doughty, Lawrence and Gertrude Bell had not been such admirable and such persuasive writers. One final and typical episode in Paris. An adoring lady in conversation with Lawrence, mainly about herself, remarked 'I fear my' conversation does not interest you much'. Lawrence replied 'It does not interest me at all'. The following references to Lawrence occur in my diary. The initial entry refers to my first meeting with the little man, and other entries from my' diary' follow so that all entries referring to him follow each other.10.xii.1917. Rafa, Palestine As I was working in my tent last night — about 10 p.m.— in walked an Arab boy dressed in spotless white, white headdress with golden circlet; for the moment I thought the boy was somebody's pleasure-boy but it soon dawned on me that he must be Lawrence whom I knew to be in camp. I just stared in silence at the very beautiful apparition which I suppose was what was intended. He then said in a soft voice 'I am Lawrence, Dalmeny sent me over to see you'. I said 'Boy or girl?' He smiled and blushed, saying 'Boy'. I stopped work and he sat down on my bed. I questioned him about his Arabian side-show (he did not like 'side-show', though I eventually persuaded him that it was). What Lawrence is doing in Arabia is not having the slightest influence on Allenby's main campaign. Lawrence regarded. Allenby's right flank as his particular province and resented any intrusion. I remember well at a conference when it was suggested that a British Force should be landed at Aqaba to turn the Turkish Gaza-Beersheba line; time and again this proposal was put up but Lawrence opposed it fiercely as it poached on his particular sphere and would have sabotaged the myth that the Arabs were being liberated by Arabs. But so great was Lawrence's influence with Allenby, Bols and Guy Dawnay, that got his way, despite the combined opinion of us junior members of the General Staff. Lawrence praised his Arabs, boasting that with 7,000 well armed men he would take n and defeat ten times their number in European troops, emphasizing only in the desert. If that were so, I suggested he might try out his claim against some 20,000 Turkish troops in Ma'an, Medina, etc. I told Lawrence that the Arabs were just looters and murderers, they would not stand casualties and were well understood by the Turks who refused to enlist them in combatant units. I was not much impressed by Lawrence's bombastic exaggerations. We sat talking until after midnight. I liked the little man, he had great charm and a pleasant voice, also an impish sense of humour. He is clearly trying to impress me with the importance of his desert manoeuvres and of himself. He is ambitious and makes preposterous claims whilst acting like a demure little schoolgirl. I gathered from his remarks that he has a poor opinion of regular officers but his contacts with regular officers have been negligible; what he was anxious to point out to me was that he, Lawrence, was vastly superior in desert tip-and-run raids to any regular officer. Perhaps. But what about Dawnay and Newcombe? He never mentioned any by name; he wished me to believe that his was the credit for every success. He loathes the French, fearing they may interfere with his dream of an Arab Empire in Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine. I reminded him of Zionism and Palestine. He promised that Palestine would be a self-governing province under Arab sovereignty. Really. I cannot see the Jews being overlorded by Arabs. I shall look forward to seeing Lawrence again for, in spite of his ambition, he has very great charm and a delightful quiet way of talking. But if he starts any of this impresario nonsense, pretending he is nobody at one moment and expecting hero-worship the next moment, I shall prick his bubble with a pop. One cannot act modesty and advertisement at one and the same time.9.II.1919. Peace Conference, Paris Toby Macindoe and I attended a meeting of the Peace Delegates. Lawrence was resplendent in white robes and gold encircled headdress; he interpreted for Feisal who speaks no English. I cannot understand Arabic but Toby can. The rumour went round that Lawrence deliberately distorted what Feisal said but Toby says it was a fairly accurate interpretation. Why is Lawrence a colonel? Nobody knows. He wears the badges of rank of a full colonel. Why? I must ask him. Possibly one of his poses.** He had been made a temporary Colonel by Allenby to enable him to travel home in comfort from Egypt.

8.iv.1919. Peace Conference, Paris I have been seeing a good deal of little Lawrence and have got to know him well. He is a complex character, his moral barometer jumping about from extreme depression to hilarious practical jokes. We lunched together and later took a walk in the Bois. The poor little man is intensely depressed. He is writing abook onhis Arabian exploits and admitted to me that though it purports to be the truth, a great deal of it is fancy, what might have happened, what should have happened and dull little incidents embroideredinto hair-breadth escapes. He confesses that he has overdone it and is now terrified lest he is found out and deflated. He told me that ever since childhood he had wanted to be a hero, that he was always fighting between rushing into limelight and hiding in utter darkness but the limelight had always won. And now he is genuinely terrified at his brazen imagination — all to what purpose? He hates himself and is having a great struggle with his conscience. His self-deception filled him with bitterness. Shall he run away and hide, confess his sins and become completely discredited — or carry the myth on into the limelight in the hopes of not being exposed. Poor little man, he's in a ghastly mess and I wish I could help him. But beyond keeping all this to myself, I do not see that I can do much about it. I have strongly advised him to write a straightforward account of his Arabian exploits — I cannot call it a campaign — omitting all glorification and embroidery. He says it has all gone too far and that others are pushing him into the limelight. He also excuses himself by saying that none of his exaggerations can be checked or verified — that seems rather ingenuous. He blames Hogarth, Lowell Thomas, Storrs and many others and complains that people in high places are already beginning to regard him as a little War Hero and that any going 'back now would be misunderstood. But in reality he only has himself to blame for he has encouraged publicity and runs the risk of discovery as he has so many versions of every little episode. He rather clings to me as he says I am the only person who understands him. I cannot help liking the little man and shall certainly not give him away but he must write a truthful bookandnot a fairy tale. We dined at the Majestic and I persuaded him to drink a little champagne to cheer him up. He usually refuses all alchohol.

17.vii.1919. Peace Conference, Paris Little Lawrence's room is directly above mine; when he wishes to communicate with me he bumps the floor and when I wish to communicate with him I bump the ceiling. This evening he bumped the floor and let down on a string the manuscript of the book he is writing.

20.vii.1919. Peace Conference, Paris Last night, as I was working in pyjamas, T.E.L. sent me a string message reading 'My mind is afire with all kinds of forebodings; may I come in?' I answered 'Come along'. I have never seen him in such a state, intensely worried. But before he started. on himself I told him I had been considering what he said about me in his book and begged him to expunge it as the first part was not true and put me in a false light. Then he started. He surprised me by saying that little of his book was strict truth, though most of it was based on fact; he had intended giving nae a copy of his book; I begged him not to as I loathe fakes; he then told me that was precisely his trouble; he also hated fakes but had been involved in a huge lie — 'imprisoned in a lie' was his expression — and that his friends and admirers intended to 1 eep him there. He was now fighting between limelight and utter darkness. It was slowly corroding his soul. And there were other troubles which might be laid bare. His father and mother were never married, which filled him with shame. I told him that in these enlightened times such things mattered little and that he was in good company for Jesus was born out of wedlock. He went on to describe the indecency and degradation he suffered at the hands of the homosexual Turks. He did not intend to publish the true account of this incident as it was too degrading, 'had penetrated his innermost nature' and he lived in constant fear that the true facts would be known. He had been seized, stripped and bound; then sodomized by the Governor of Deraa, followed by similar treatment by the Governor's servants. After this revolting behaviour he had been flogged. (1) He took the blame for the legend which had sprung up about him, whilst admitting encouragement and exaggerations by his admirers. In his own words (1918) 'He craved to be famous and had a horror of being known to like being known... I wondered if all established reputations were founded like mine, on fraud'. What was he to do? Go ahead and risk being exposed or hide himself in the wilderness of darkness and obscurity? I suggested that he should start with a clean slate, write a straightforward and true account of his Arab exploits, ignoring his friends' embroideries. He promised to think it over, but I fear he has gone too far, poor little man. His nature shrinks from obscurity unless it would bring mystery and applause. We continued until midnight when he asked if he might have a bath as his room had no bathroom. So he stripped. I was shocked to see red weals on his ribs, standing out like tattoo marks. 'Good God' I said 'whatever are those?' He said 'A camel accident at Azraq; dragged across barbed wire'. Except for the weals already mentioned there was no sign of the many bullet and other wounds he claims to have suffered. A bullet leaves an indelible mark however slight. * He had his bath and was still so depressed that I asked him if he would care to sleep in my spare bed. He jumped at it. So I tucked him up and gave him two allonal tabloids which sent him to sleep. I'm terribly sorry for the little man. He has such charm and has got himself into a deplorable mess. The two tragedies which weigh most shamefully on his sensitive soul are his illegitimate origin and the utter degradation at the hands of a homosexual monster.* When he was stripped for examination by Army Doctors on enlistment in August, 1922, there is no mention of bullet wounds but only of the weal which is what I saw in Paris.

24.xii.1921. London Today I lunched with Winston. There were also present Freddie Guest, Shuckburgh and Lawrence. The conversation throughout turned on Mesopotamia and Palestine, Winston bombarding Lawrence with questions about the two countries. Lawrence has just returned from a six month tour in Arabia and Palestine, and is full of new ideas in furtherance of his Shereefian policy which is costing this country so many missions a year. I was much struck by the attitude of Winston towards Lawrence, which almost amounted to hero-worship. Winston asked him question after question in such a way as to make clear what would be the most acceptable reply. Lawrence, who is as quick as a monkeyin conversation,took full advantage of this and took care not to say anything which would be unpleasant hearing, interlarding his remarks with a suitable amount of flattery. Winston revelled in it, but to Shuckburgh and me it was nothing but nauseating. Lawrence had scarce a good word for anyone. He freely criticized Samuel, Cox, Allenby and Congreve, and spoke eulogistically of Feisal and Abdullah. This latter worthless Arab has proved his worthlessness in Transjordania, but Lawrence still sees advantage to us in keeping him on there, drawing a huge salary for doing nothing. I interrupted the conversation by saying I thought Abdullah had better be removed and that we must administer Transjordania directly, as part of Palestine. Winston and Lawrence would not think of it. Winston said he thought Abdullah should be invited to London, and would promise him a 22,000 trip. More money being thrown away to the Arabs at the expense of the British taxpayer. It is clear that Lawrence, with his rnad self-seeking pan-Arab policy, pays no account to what the policy is costing the country, and Winston is quite prepared to spend hundreds of thousands on bolstering up the effete House of Hussein, and in paying subsidies to Hussein's enemies to keep quiet. (Ibn Saud receives 260,000 a year as a bribe not to attack Hussein.) Heaven knows where this mad policy is not going to land us. I was particularly disgusted when Winston asked Lawrence 'What about Egypt?' Lawrence replied, 'Quiet, and there never will be much trouble. It is only kept going by a few political hotheads', adding that Allenby is doing his best, but does not understand the problems. 'I agree,' said. Winston, and with this encouragement, Lawrence poured out a torrent of abuse against Allenby and all Egyptian Officials. He referred to Allenby as a man of no principles, and as a hopelessly weak administrator. This I thought most ungracious for Lawrence owes everything he has ever hadto Allenby. He was created by Allenby, rewarded by Allenby and his reputation, such as it is, is of Allenby's creation. But apart from this, what Lawrence says about Allenby is not true. It was simply said to please Winston. Lawrence is a most remarkable man, with a most remarkable record, but as unscrupulous as he is dangerous. His meek schoolboy expression hides the cunning of a fox and the intriguing spirit of the East. When Winston referred to Allenby as a 'dud' General, an expression to which Freddie added 'I agree', I was on the point of bursting with indignation. I remarked that at anyrate Allenby had proved himself to be a soldier of the first rank, and that his marked ability for administration had presumably prompted His Majesty's Government to appoint him High Commissioner in Egypt, a position he had held for the last three years. Winston did not like this outburst, and remarked that any soldier with tlre resources at Allenby's command might have done a great deal more in 1917 and 1918, and that Allenby had proved himself a weak vacillating administrator in Egypt, devoid of policy or sense. I refused to let the matter rest there, so added that such a verdict was entirely contrary to the judgment of either Army or public and official opinion in Egypt. Winston's excellent lunch was, so far as I am concerned, entirely spoiled by the venom of the conversation, which was scandalous and ill-bred.

19.xi.1922. Bagdad I had a long friendly talk with Feisal, discussing Lawrence, Hubert Young, the French and the Turks. Feisal had given up faith in Lawrence and saw him as an adventurer, an advertiser and a humbug. I thought this rather an ungracious criticism of the little man who had done so much for him. We all know Lawrence is a humbug, though as able as a monkey. The word 'imp' suits him best. His refusal of the C.B. at the hands of King George was an unpardonable piece of bad manners, the King standing confused with the decoration in his hands. It was desire for notoriety, the abrupt refusal bringing greater notoriety than the acceptance.

20.v.1935 London Poor little Lawrence died yesterday morning after a week of fears and hopes for his recovery following on a commonplace motor accident. It is indeed a tragic irony that, after all the dangers he went through during the war, he should have been killed in the New Forest in a motor accident. I first met Lawrence during the war when he was conducting his Arabian campaign. His charm fascinated at once and from that moment we were friends. I think we appreciated each other and we were certainly able to give each other much help in our work. Then, in 1919, in Paris during the Peace Conference, we were much together in work and in play. I got to know him better there and to understand him, but it was only later on, from 1921 to 1924, that we became most intimate, working together in the same room in the Colonial Office. We then drifted apart, but met often. The last occasion when I saw him was only last year when he suddenly appeared at my house and we had a long talk about old times and the future. On that occasion I saw a side of his nature which had never before revealed itself. He got down on his knees and played with my children, making railways and blowing up trains just as he did in 1917 in Arabia. Lawrence was a master of irregular warfare and one of the outstanding figures of the Great War. The silly, futile charge that self-advertisement was at the root of all his actions is of course not true. He loathed publicity, though his little acts of impish folly would sometimes lend colour to the myth that he revelled to conceal himself in a blaze of limelight. Lawrence had a brain which was always alert, inspiring and quick as lightning. His physical strength was on a par with his intellect. He was a most remarkable little man, scrupulously high principled and loyal to a degree which was almost a religion. I always hate losing friends but in Lawrence I have lost more than a friend, I have lost an inspiration, an example which it will be impossible to replace. His public record has been unblemished, utterly unsentimental, clear and incisive, crammed with successes. Poor little man, I shall miss him a great deal. His personality had a peculiar charm of its own and he stood out unique among all men I know in that respect. We had much in common. His example was noble and my loss is great. If he had been spared he might have done great things, for he had that great soul, generous heart and magnetic charm which spells success. His basic character was integrity, loyalty and humility but one had to dig deep to remove the thick crust of pose, exaggeration, imagination and impishness which he imposed on many of his friends.

19.vi.1935. London Today I was a guest at a luncheon given by Foyle's Literary Luncheon (a curious institution about which I know nothing) at the Grosvenor Hotel. There were over 350 persons present, all admirers of Lawrence and mainly authors, literary men and press-men. The object of the lunch was to pay tribute to T. E. Lawrence. Lord Lloyd was in the chair but had. to leave immediately after lunch, giving place to Herbert Samuel. I sat between Lady Storrs and Captain Liddell Hart, an author who has, to my mind, written the best book about T.E.L. I liked Liddell Hart and he spoke well about T.E.L. as a soldier and an author. Though of course, when Hart compared T.E.L. to Napoleon and the great soldiers of history, I am unable to go so far. Where Lawrence excelled was in inspiration, in setting an example, in knowing the Arabs, in leadership and personality. His real qualities as a soldier were never tested for his own men were a rabble and his enemy little better. But he excelled as a man of letters. His writings, and especially his letters, will go down to history as exquisite examples of English literature. His own writings are his best memorial. None who attempt to probe that complex character or write his history will ever succeed so well as T.E.L. did himself in his Seven Pillars and in his letters to his friends. Ronald Storrs spoke of T.E.L. as a man and did it well. I was almost in tears at the memory of our friendship. Mrs Lawrence, his mother, was there, a charming little woman to whom I was introduced, a pathetic little figure with all the pluck and character of her son and some of his looks. Poor little woman, what she has lost, but how proud she must feel. I was much attracted to her. She sat through lunch with a very charming smile on her face, looking very young and terribly proud.

8.xii.1937. Bristol I have today finished reading T. E. Lawrence by his friends. I was asked to participate in the book but refused, knowing how much T.E. would have hated the publicity and piecemeal postmortem. I have much too much love and respect for him to do anything which he might not have liked. I was devoted to him. But though I thoroughly disapprove of the motive of the book, I admit it serves its purpose, giving an insight into the man's character if read by anyone who knew him. To anyone who did not know him the book must leave a feeling of bewilderment. I think I knew 'Laurens' (as I always called and thought of him) better than any man and even better than his family. I saw him many times in Palestine in 1917, again in Paris during the Peace Conference when we became intimate, we worked in the same room in the Colonial Office in 1921 and 1922, often lunching together, and when he was at Uxbridge and later testing speed-boats he would often come to my house and play with the children. He never posed to me nor I to him. I doubt if he ever hid anything from me. If there was the slightest reserve or pose in either of us, the culprit would say 'strip' and the unvarnished truth would emerge. But to others he was a different person, posing and acting, often exaggerating and even inventing. He could not help it, partly his innate desire for notoriety and partly his impish nature which never missed an opportunity of a leg-pull, no matter how important his companion; in fact, the more important the person the bigger was the 'pull'. But to me he spoke the naked truth, his whole soul uncovered; and in response I opened out my heart to him. His most remarkable characteristic was the fire in his blue eyes, dormant if happy or dreaming, but sparkling with fire if roused. I have seen him angry, thwarted and ridiculed. Then he really was a superman, a sight for the Gods. But he never lost that slow'deliberate intonation, the exact and perfect elocution, the chosen words uttered with the ghost of a smile, disarming and delightful. People may have despised Lawrence for his desire for publicity, but they never lost respect. At the Peace Conference in Paris he would let me read the manuscript of Seven Pillars. He admitted to me that it was not a true story, though based on fact. He told me I was to get a copy, but I begged him not to give me a fake, so I never received a copy. The book was not honest, it was also written in a style which I found tiresome, difficult to read and strained; and it contained a quite untrue account of me, almost amounting to libel. The book originated (teste Lawrence) in a desire to see if he could write and also to try his hand at printing. He was profoundly dissatisfied with the book, for, as he often related, he was pleased with the style and printing, but disgusted at the dishonesty. I know some of it is invention, a lot of it exaggeration. But the general story is true and indeed omits much to T.E.L.'s credit. The Deraa incident is false. T.E.L. would have recalled that book if possible; therefore how I loathed the unlimited edition published immediately after his death. To imply any sort of sex-perversion or uncleanness to Laurens is grossly inaccurate and libellous. He admired virility, energy; he often told me how he admired the figure of a young boy or girl, the most wonderful example of beauty. But his mind was pure as gold. Indelicacy, indecency, any form of coarseness or vulgarity repelled him physically.* He frequently discussed marriage and women with me. He was not a woman hater, but loathed the false type, the decorated hussy, the noisy strumpet, the flattering society woman. His objection to matrimony was physical contact. He could not bear even being touched on the sleeve and shaking hands was an effort. * This may appear to be in contradiction to the publication of 'The Mint'. T. E. L. showed me the MSS. I told him it was a foul book, coarse and vulgar. He said it was meant to be to show his own degradation. Trenchard forbad. its publication and it was only published by his family after his death. I doubt if T. E. L. would ever have consented. He had perfect manners if consideration for others counts and he expected good manners from others. His love of everything beautiful was most noticeable. I once walked with him in the New Forest and his knowledge of birds astonished me. He knew most of the notes and, oddly enough, preferred the rasping churr of the nightjar to the full throated warble of the nightingale. In his later years he educated himself to music. He often told me that music would in the end make a normal man of him. It certainly did a lot to soften that hard side of his nature and alleviated the terrible torture of soul and mind. brought on by the war and. the disappointments after the war. The war shattered his sensitive nature. He was shaken off his balance by the stresses, hardships and responsibilities of his campaign. These all went to accentuate and develop any little eccentricities of his youth. Whenever he came to see me in London he would play trains with my children. Anne may remember him, the others were too young. With a bag of flour he would blow up and derail a Turkish train and make a foul mess of the drawing-room. No trouble was too much for him. On one occasion when the children were out he waited until they returned and spent his time arranging the trains, placing loot in the wagons, so that he could demonstrate how he would loot a train. Whenever he spent a night at my house he would keep me up till 2 a.m. but was always first up and about, often ragging the children and making a terrible noise with ticklings and struggles. He was a past master of tomfoolery and iьpishness, always ready for mischief, sometimes of a very naughty and high order. But he was never unkind. I remember in Paris in 1919 when the Peace Delegation was working in the Astoria, T.E.L. and I, from the top of the centre well, spied Lord Hardinge, Balfour, Lloyd George, many distinguished French and American officers, talking most seriously at the bottom. T.E.L. hurried to a nearby lavatory and produced a huge roll of toilet paper which he let unfurl down the well till it was festooned in graceful paper cascades all over the balconies and with a neat little heap at the bottom. It broke up the little conference at the bottom whilst T.E.L. and I fled to our rooms and hid our noses in work. I heard Hardinge say that evening 'There is nothing funny about toilet paper'. I think there is but cannot define it. Perhaps it only becomes funny when in contact with long faces and serious diplomacy. Poor little man. I cherish his memory. His name will live in history. I miss him more than I can say but feel that his fine example is a beautiful memory.

10.i.1938. Devon I have been thinking a great deal about T.E.L. these last few days. His personality echoes in my dreams almost everynight. I miss him more than ever and am extremely sorry that his admirers and his family should have showered so much publicity on him since his death. T.E.L.'s great asset was his originality; he neither cared for nor knew any aspect of convention in clothes or manners and would always bring some new idea into any matter under discussion; he had a great and unfailing sense of humour; intensly kind and understanding. He has often been pictured as a complete humbug and poseur; there is no doubt that when in Arabia he was most anxious for publicity; he encouraged publicity whilst pretending to shun it; later he became a prisoner of his own legend; in many ways he was a vain little man, but this was balanced by immense pride and dignity. Having helped to weave his legend he found himself imprisoned in it by his numerous friends. His enforced hermitage after 1923 arose from fear of discovery, frustration and a sense of his own failure; celebrity was thrust on him, frightened him and gave him an importance which he felt he had not deserved. His Seven Pillars is a lie based on fact. He was not a 'great soldier' and not even a great guerrilla leader. But he did introduce a form of irregular guerrilla warfare wlrich hadlittle more than a nuisance value to the Turk. It, is a prototype of what may becorne a commonplace in the future wars. I see no reason why every army in the future should not have an elernent of highly trained regular guerrillas as part of their norrnal organization. When we worked together in the Colonial Office we worked out a scheme for a Directorshrip of Intelligence embracing both political and military aspects and coalescing under one head all the little organizations of the Foreign Office, War Office, Admiralty, Air Ministry, Scotland Yard and M.I.5. We put the scheme up to Churchill, Amery and Macdonogh and they concurred. It involved a training college in London and a training college for agents in the country. It was complete and we were applying for Treasury sanction when T.E.L. died. I felt I could not go on with it as it was very much his work.

20.xi.1955. London Richard Aldington has just published a book exploding the Lawrence Myth. It is a venomous book but true. Lawrence was the victim of his own desire for publicity but I blame the so-called Lawrence Bureau for pushing him into such an impossible position — men like Lowell Thomas, Storrs, and his own family. There are also men like Lloyd George, Winston Churchill, Allenby and Wavell who helped erect the myth and made the most extravagant claims for Lawrence's military genius. Lawrence had great charm, great ability and was in many ways a genius; he used all these virtues for deception. Not one single one of the men mentioned above had any first-hand knowledge of Lawrence's Arabian exploits, having gained their knowledge from Lawrence himself and from what he spread about, knowing it to be either false or exaggerated. Comparing him with Napoleon and Hannibal is just nonsense for Lawrence never commanded anything but a looting rabble of murderous Arab levies, he took part in no major military operation and his desert exploits had not the slightest bearing on Allenby's campaign. In his own words, his was a 'side-show of a sideshow'. I probably knew Lawrence better than any living man. We were attracted to each other when we first met in Sinai in 1917, we were much together in Paris in 1919, he laid bare his body and soul to me when he broke down in my room in Paris, we worked in the same room in the Colonial Office for almost two years and he often visited my house in London, playing with my children not only when he was at Uxbridge but later on after 1928. There were no secrets between us and I believe I was the only one of his friends to whom he confided that he was a complete fraud. 'Some day I shall be found out' he said on more than one occasion. Poor little man. Aldington explodes the myth that Lawrence was offered the High Commissionership of Egypt in succession to Allenby who threatened resignation. This must refer to an occasion in 1922 when, after a conference in Churchill's room at the Colonial Office, the question of Allenby's resignation was discussed. Churchill put his hand on Lawrence's shoulder saying 'I think we shall have to send you out to Egypt'. It was not intended seriously. We all smiled and thought it a harmless little joke. But I have little doubt that Lawrence let it be known to many friends that it was a serious offer. Lawrence's love of speed and power was closely linked with his fascination for great big he-men such as Allenby, Dalmeny, Churchill and many others. He had no use for women, his sexual inclination being big strong men. He had little use for small men such as he was himself. I remember an occasion in the Majestic Hotel in Paris when he ran off with my knobkerry; I chased him, caught him and holding him tight gave him a spanking on the bottom. He made no attempt to resist and told me later that he could easily understand a woman submitting to rape once a strong man hugged her. But, all the same, he had great charm and I was devoted to him. His obsession for publicity ruined his life; he got what he wanted, knew it was all false and got frightened. He found out that his life was an enacted lie. And now The Mint has been published. It is laboriously written, tiresome to read and the flatness of its impact is scarcely credible. It is a gross libel on the R.A.F. and the young men who were Lawrence's companions. It never should have been published.

And so ends my reminiscences of Lawrence.

I arrived in Egypt on September 1, 1919, to take up my. new duties, and write: I am Allenby's Political Officer for all occupied enemy territory including Syria, Palestine and Transjordan. I am responsible that the Foreign Office is kept informed of what is going on, I advise Allenby on all political matters and am responsible to the Foreign Office that their policy is carried out. This dual responsibility and dual loyalty, the one to Allenby the soldier and the other to the Foreign Office, is not going to be easy and must end in friction. Emir Feisal is in Damascus, an un-crowned King of Lawrence's Arab Empire and straining to have a go at the French who had a mission (with a few unauthorized troops) in Beirut. Monsieur Laforcade was head of the French Mission. We have a military Governor in Jerusalem, his responsibilities extending to Transjordan east to an undefined frontier with Iraq and south to an undefined frontier with the rising power of Ib'n Saud. My Headquarters are in Cairo. (Middle East Diary, 1917-1956 by Richard Meinertzhagen, Cresset Press, 1959, pp. 27-43.)

26.iv.1921. London Winston Churchill sent for me today and it is now arranged that I commence work in the Colonial Office on May 9th. I shall not be sorry to be back at work though I should have preferred being somewhere out of England.

John Shuckburgh was head of the Middle East Department; he is seconded from the India Ogice, and was saturated with hebraphobia. Hubert Young, one of Lawrence's young men, Indian Army and later Governor of Trinidad, was second in command; I liked Hubert, he was a scholar and a first-rate office man; then there was Clauson, a typical Civil Servant; Vernon of the Treasury in charge of finance, Lawrence as Arab Adviser and myself as Military Adviser. I was most fortunate in having my old friend Freddie Guest as Secretary of Air and Hugh Trenchard, another old friend, as Chief of the Air Staff; I had unbounded admiration for Hugh Trenchard, the architect of British supremacyin the air; our friendship u as a great help in our work. And at the War Office Henry Wilson was C.I.G.S., an old friend from Paris days. When I saw him just before entering the Colonial Office, he warned me 'You've got to keep Winston on the rails; he might do anything stupid and his military judgment is almost always at fault; he thinks he's the Duke of Marlborough; any trouble, come along to me; I know how to manage him.'(pp. 95-96)

15.vi.1921. London Churchill spoke this afternoon in the House of Commons on the Supplementary Estimates for the Middle East. He spoke well and his statement was well received on all sides. It was a marked success. The whole of the Middle East Department attended in the Prompter's Gallery to hear it. The speech was an outline of policy. He commenced by outlining the engagements we had with the Arabs, French and Zionists, showing how he intended to reconcile these obligations with a policy whose ultimate aim was a reduction in expenditure. In Mesopotamia we would allow the Arabs to governthemselves, primarily under British advice. They would be free to choose their own ruler, and if they chose Feisal we should not object. We were committed to a Shereefian policy which entailed backing King Hussein and his family against all other claimants to kingship in Arabia or Mesopotamia. (This of course was the Lawrence influence.) He was raisinglocaltroops in Mesopotamia to replace Imperial troops. A Desert Air Route was in process of being reconnoitred and this would lead to economy, for Mesopotamia could then be reinforced in twenty-four hours from Egypt or Palestine. Churchill then turned to Palestine and outlined the Zionist policy to which he was most sympathetic and from which he expected great results. But the whole policy depended on a satisfactory and early peace settlement with Turkey. This matter was fundamental to his whole policy. He admitted that there was the element of a gamble in his policy, but it had a good chance of success. The speech was received with much applause and was an evident success. I was much struck by the ignorance and poor delivery of those speakers who followed Churchill. Winterton described the speech as a 'personal triumph', repeating in the second degree of oratory what Winston had said in the first degree. He brought nothing which threw light on the subject. that mountebank Townshend. After telling the House what a fine fellow he was, how much he had suffered inMesopotamia and what a lot he knew of the country, he said he suspected the Arab and thought Percy Cox was unduly influenced by their attractions. He added nothing to the debate. Josiah Wedgewood uttered a short and bitterly sarcastic speech, typical of the man. Then came the enthusiast Ormsby Gore, who gave us a lively eulogy on Zionism, claimed Winston's policy as his own and generally approved. Bob Cecil went clean off the rails and wasted the House's time by raking up past history and blaming the Government for their past sins in Palestine and Mesopotamia. Eustace Percy then delivered a short speech which I thought the best of them all. It was well delivered and to the point. Though he was pledged to cut down expenditure, he believed that our surest economy was to secure peace in the Middle East by means of adequate garrisons. After Harmsworth and Commander Kenworthy had made short obstructive speeches, the debate closed. I was not struck by the standard of either oratory, knowledge or delivery of our legislators.

21.vr.1921. London The atmosphere in the Colonial Office is definitely hebraphobe, the worst offender being Shuckburgh who is head of the Middle East Department. Hubert Young and little Lawrence do their utmost to conceal their dislike and mistrust of the Jews but both strongly support the official pro-Arab policy of Whitehall and frown on the equally official policy based on the Balfour Declaration; the latter is the only policy I recognize. I exploded on hearing that Churchill had severed Transjordan from Palestine in an interview in Jerusalem between him and Abdullah on March 27th this year. Apparently Abdullah was moving through Transjordan on his way to help Feisal's adherents in Damascus and make trouble for the French who turned Feisal out last year. Abdullah had to be placated and met Churchill in Jerusalem; Abdullah was placated at the expense of the Jewish National Home which embraces the whole of Biblical Palestine. Lawrence was of course with Churchill and influenced him. So Abdullah was made Emir of Transjordan, was given a British adviser and a subsidy. Of course the man accepted at once. This reduces the Jewish National Home to one-third of Biblical Palestine. The Colonial Office and the Palestine Administration have now declared that the articles of the mandate relating to the Jewish Home are not applicable to Transjordan and that the severance of Transjordan from Palestine is in accordance with the terms of the McMahon pledge. This discovery was not made until it became necessary to appease an Arab Emir. I told Shuckburgh I wished to see Churchill on the question; he said it would be no good as the matter was settled; so I rang up Eddy Marsh and told him I must see the S. of S. at once and down I went foaming at the mouth with anger and indignation. Churchill heard me out; I told him it was grossly unfair to the Jews, that it was yet another promise broken and that it was a most dishonest act, that the Balfour Declaration was being torn up by degrees and that the official policy of H.M.G. to establish a Home for the Jews in Biblical Palestine was being sabotaged; that I found the Middle East Department whose business it was to implement the Mandate, almost one hundred per cent hebraphobe and could not the duration of Abdullah's Emirate in Transjordan be of a temporary nature, say for seven years, and a guarantee given that Abdullah should never be given sovereign powers over what was in fact Jewish territory. Churchill listened and said he saw the force of my argument and would consider the question. He thought it was too late to alter but a time limit to Abdullah's Emirate in Transjordan might work. * I'm thoroughly disgusted.* I think I was mistaken. Though Transjordan was included within Palestine Mandated Territory it was not part of the country allotted to the Jews for their National Home, the eastern boundary of which was the River Jordan. (pp. 98-100)

14. vi. 1922. London <...> More than ever I resent the handing over of Transjordan, which is an integral part of Palestine, to an Arab ruler. Churchill is responsible for this grave error. It deprives the Jewish National Home of one of the best parts of Palestine and is bound to lead to trouble. The French are not going to last long in Syria a'nd then we shall have yet another Arab State north of Palestine and the Jews will be entirely encircled by bitter enemies, which places them in a precarious position. I trust I live to see an Independent Jewish State in Palestine; their survival will be precarious surrounded by enemies; but the Jews are good fighters.20.vi. 1922. London Churchill sent for me today; I found little Lawrence with him, grinning from ear to ear and clearly very pleased with himself. Winston was also in affable mood. He told me the subject under discussion was security in Transjordan and Iraq and the ability of Feisal and Abdullah to maintain control when, as is inevitable, our advisers and troops are withdrawn. I asked if the withdrawal of British advisers and troops was contemplated, as, if so, it was news to me. I first pointed out that Iraq and Transjordan were two different problems. The former might get self-government in the next ten years and might prove to be the best of the Arab States as the Iraqis were progressive and had oil. But their king was a'stranger, a Hashemite, one of Lawrence's inventions and had no claim to Iraq. We only put him there because the French turned him out of Damascus and we did not know what to do with him. Sooner or later the Iraqis mill get rid of him. And as for Abdullah, another upstart placed there by Lawrence and given a kingdom at the expense of Palestine. Transjordan is part of Biblical Palestine which had been promised to the Jews. Lawrence exploded — Transjordan was Arab territory and had nothing to do with Palestine. I pointed out that both Transjordan and Iraq would drive their little Hashemite kings out, when they felt strong enough to do it. You cannot foist foreigners on countries as kings. Winston pointed out that William the Conqueror was a Norman and George the First was a German. 'True,' I said, 'but they were not Arabs, nor were they foisted on to Britain, the one coming as a conqueror, the other as the nearest in royal descent.' I reverted to Transjordan and urged that Abdullah's tenure should cease; that eventually the Jews would attain sovereignty in Palestine and I did not wish them to be surrounded on all sides by hostile Arabs; moreover, as the Jewish population increased, they would require more land. 'At the expense of the Arab,' said Lawrence. 'No,' I said. 'There are thousands of acres in Transjordan lying fallow and unoccupied owing to Arab laziness.' Winston said he could do nothing about Transjordan and that Abdullah had come to stay. Grins from Lawrence. I said, 'He'll stay until a bullet gets him'. Silence. Then Winston— to me — 'You do not think that either Feisal or Abdullah can last if we withdraw support?' I said I was sure they could not last as they were upstarts from a decadent family and even the Arab worm might turn. 'Well,' said Winston, 'we've got to try.'(pp.117-118)1) "In the original the whole of the following paragraph is absent:"He had not intend to publish the true account of this incident as it was too degrading, 'had penetrated his innermost nature' and he lived in constant fear that the true facts would be known. He had been seized, stripped and bound; then sodomized by Governor of Deraa, followed by similar treatment by the Governor's servants. After this revolting behaviour he had been flogged."However, in the original the last sentence of the preceding paragraph ends with a line subsequently deleted from the Middle East Diary: 'having preferred submission to a flogging which he would not have survived.'What purpose could it have served to invent a story about Lawrence having been sexually assaulted, if M. himself did not believe it, which is what he stated quite clearly in December 1937? Irrespective of his capacity to do so, it seems that M. was attempting to recall in greater detail Lawrence's revelations of that night in July, and to illuminate, for the benefit of an audience hooked on Lawrence gossip, an incident that his original diary had only hinted at." (Richard Meinertzhagen: soldier, scientist, and spy by Mark Cocker, 1989, 121). Дальше Кокер пишет, что версия в оригинале совпадает с изложенной в письме Лоуренса к Шарлотте Шоу в 1924 (он писал ей, что порки, изображенной в "Семи столпах мудрости" не было, т.к. он испугался боли и согласился), а то, что письмо было обнародовано уже после смерти Майнерцхагена, подтверждает, что он услышал эту версию от самого Лоуренса. Майнерцхаген заменил ее при публикации на версию, рисующую Лоуренса в более героическом свете (похожую на изложенную в "Семи столпах мудрости").

Добавлю сюда."Lawrence of Arabia and I were not only intimate but we understood each other perfectly. He knew my faults and my virtues, I knew his. I think I knew him better than any living man; I respected him, admired him and was devoted to him. Lawrence was a man who held physical power in awe, he almost worshipped it. He once said to me. 'It must be a delightful sensation to be so strong that one can do as one likes with anyone". His estimate of my physical strength was exaggerated and in writing in his Seven Pillars of Wisdom, his remarks were intended to be most flattering though in fact they amount almost to a gross libel. Here again there is but a vein of truth in what he says. My brain and nature are not entirely "savage", nor did it give me real pleasure to knock Germans on the head. But this is what he says." (Army Diary: 1899-1926 by Richard Meinertzhagen, 1960, p.296).